Hi John, SIPPING-ers,
draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai-07 mentions that P-Asserted-Identity
header field values with unexpected URI schemes should be ignored.
Furthermore, only SIP, SIPS and tel are expected URI schemes.
RFC 5031 introduces service URNs allowing well-known context-dependent
services to be resolved. If a well-known content-dependant service
populates a P-Asserted-Identity header field or a proxy populates it
on behalf of the service, how should the header field be populated? It
would be useful if the service URN is allowed as an entry into the
P-Asserted-Identity.
Would allowing service URNs in the P-Asserted/Preferred-Identity
header field be a useful addition to this draft?
Regards,
John-Luc
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
